BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

**Posted by tonnaree** March 4, 2015 5:09 pm

I have to agree with you Schmiezi.
In my opinion the article was poorly written shallow clickbait and not nearly worth this much drama.

The only thing I find remotely interesting is why did they choose Sherlock as an example instead of say, Supernatural or even The Avengers.

**Posted by Liberty** March 4, 2015 6:56 pm

I suppose Sherlock is quite a famous (and historical) example. Spock/Kirk is probably more famous, but less current.

**Posted by Schmiezi** March 4, 2015 7:00 pm

Liberty wrote:
I suppose Sherlock is quite a famous (and historical) example. Spock/Kirk is probably more famous, but less current.

True. Yet, not even mentioning Spock/Kirk feels a bit like explaining what a lightbulb is without mentioning Edison.

**Posted by tonnaree** March 4, 2015 7:10 pm

Personally if I had been writing the article I would not have focused on one popular ship but looked at several different examples.

**Posted by NatureNoHumansNo** March 5, 2015 10:00 am

I read the article, and i didn't see anything wrong in it. It just states that, for some fans, nods and subtext became more important that what is actually shown. You can see sexual tension ( or you can not see them, as ReReader and a bunch of other fans do), you can see nods, but you can't see "actual" romance.
And that's what is a net phenomenon, the way fans massively get involved, project themselves and use their imagination. I didn't read it's about being lunatic or not, imagination is good, invention is good, and the article doesn't say it's not.

**Posted by SolarSystem** March 5, 2015 12:35 pm

tonnaree, I agree, it would have done the whole idea of shipping more justice to take a look at different kinds of ships (but as has been pointed out this kind of article doesn't allow for much space, so... maybe they should have gone with a whole different topic there).

And looking at this...

REReader wrote:
The Times correctly states that shippers generally (using Sherlock as an example) take a relationship in a piece of fiction and push it farther, or take it in a different direction, than is overtly depicted in the show.

...it seems to me the idea wasn't to give an accurate idea of what shipping quite often really means. Because it doesn't just mean that you take a coulpe that isn't really a romantic couple in a tv show and turn it into one. This happens, of course, but it would have been nice to also state that fans very often also create romantic worlds that aren't "completely imagined" at all!
Let me just mention two examples: The Doctor/Rose Tyler in "Doctor Who", Jack Harkness/Ianto Jones in "Torchwood". They are romantically attached on screen as much as they are in the fanfic world, the latter even more so than the former.
So it seems to me such ships were consciously ignored by the author in order to show shippers in a certain light.

Last edited by SolarSystem (March 5, 2015 12:38 pm)

**Posted by Sherlock Holmes** March 6, 2015 3:20 pm

Really glad this is finally getting back on topic.

Please keep Johnlock arguments to the relevant Johnlock threads and on those, please remember to be polite and kind to one another!

I find the article quiite distasteful and offensive and poorly written. I definitely think they should have referenced some other famous ships and I felt like it came across as making shippers out to be a bit weird and was mocking them somewhat. I'm not a massive Johnlock shipper by any means. I ship them for fun and I enjoy reading fics and looking at fan art, but I don't ship them for real within the show, as in, I don't think it will ACTUALLY happen...but I certainly wouldn't be upset by any means if it did. But even as a 'medium' shipper, I found this article a bit not good.